Fangraphs (and other national publications) on the Twins

[prouster]

It'll catch up to the defenses sooner or later when that's exactly what these pro batters do.

Why should these pro fielders get the advantage of unfettered movement when the batter doesn't? If they want to make plays, get faster, get more agile, take better routes. See, this line of reasoning can very easily be applied in both directions.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Why should these pro fielders get the advantage of unfettered movement when the batter doesn't? If they want to make plays, get faster, get more agile, take better routes. See, this line of reasoning can very easily be applied in both directions.

 

the pitcher can't move around either. Those two are "locked" in a battle, everyone else gets to move around based on what those two are likely to do. 

[prouster]

the pitcher can't move around either. Those two are "locked" in a battle, everyone else gets to move around based on what those two are likely to do.

Sure. But the pitcher has a defense behind him. It's also inherently more difficult to hit than to pitch.

 

Once more, and this is my final post on the subject, I am not against defensive shifts (I feel like everyone who has responded skipped over this part). My reasoning for *simply suggesting* that some limitations could be good for the game are laid out in an earlier post. Isn't it more fun, after all, to watch a guy leg out a triple or get a clutch hit than to watch him smash a liner right at a guy who isn't normally there? I guess thinking this way makes me what...a simpleton? A relic?

[drjim]

The Ringer on the Twins:

 

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/9/7/16268192/minnesota-twins-historic-turnaround-playoff-hopes

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't want to see MLB enact any rules about defensive shifts but I worry that the analytics of baseball will override a natural tendency to counter the shift with a "hit it where they ain't" strategy.

 

Because it's entirely possible that pull-happy offensive players are better pulling the ball, shifts be damned.

 

And a pull-happy, defensive shift laden baseball is a less interesting spectator sport. And that's bad for the long term game. Homers are fun and everything but runners on base, stolen bases, plays at second/third/home make for a better game to watch. The more often a ball is put into play, the better off the sport is in general.

[USAFChief]

 

I don't want to see MLB enact any rules about defensive shifts but I worry that the analytics of baseball will override a natural tendency to counter the shift with a "hit it where they ain't" strategy.

 

Because it's entirely possible that pull-happy offensive players are better pulling the ball, shifts be damned.

 

And a pull-happy, defensive shift laden baseball is a less interesting spectator sport. And that's bad for the long term game. Homers are fun and everything but runners on base, stolen bases, plays at second/third/home make for a better game to watch. The more often a ball is put into play, the better off the sport is in general.

concur.  If baseball wants to make an improvement through rule changes, they should find a way to reduce strikeouts.

[70charger]

 

The Ringer on the Twins:

 

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/9/7/16268192/minnesota-twins-historic-turnaround-playoff-hopes

 

Good article, but I'm a little miffed at (homer warning!) no mention of Joe Mauer.

 

Post all-star break, he's hitting .331, he's OPSing .867, and his OPS+ sits at a pretty damn stellar 134.

 

In fact, he's been pretty close to those numbers since his slow start ended around the end of April. Since May 1st, he's hitting .319, he's OPSing .851, and his OPS+ is 129. Guess Buxton isn't the only one who overcame a cold start.

 

This is getting close to vintage Joe, and I for one am excited to see it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The Ringer on the Twins:

 

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/9/7/16268192/minnesota-twins-historic-turnaround-playoff-hopes

 

thanks!

[BrianTrottier]

 

I guess I'd rather see hitters work on taking advantage of shifts.  "Hit 'em where they ain't."  

 

Do the work necessary to learn to hit the ball to all fields, including pulling the ball and taking an outside pitch the other way.

 

If a hitter only hits the ball to part of the field, he gets what he deserves.

 

EDIT:  I also want to leave defensive positioning to the manager.  The only real rule is, only the catcher can start in foul territory...and that's enough for me.  I rather like the old days, when a manager might use 5 infielders, or put his pitcher in RF for one hitter, then return him to the mound.  

 

Just as a (absurd) hypothetical, suppose defenses started running screens on batters, lining up infielders so that they would obstruct the batter's view of the pitcher. The shortstop, or even the left fielder for a LH pull hitter, could stand roughly where an L screen is placed during batting practice. What would your thoughts be on that as a fan?

 

I guess my take is that other sports have positioning rules (football has illegal formations, hockey has offsides and restrictions on where the goalie can skate before a whistle is blown), so I don't see any particularly compelling reason not to implement some sort of positioning restrictions on the baseball diamond. Leave plenty of flexibility to take advantage of hitters' tendencies, sure, but aren't some of the alignments we actually see defenses take bordering on the absurd? Just a thought..

 

 

 

[USAFChief]

 

Just as a (absurd) hypothetical, suppose defenses started running screens on batters, lining up infielders so that they would obstruct the batter's view of the pitcher. The shortstop, or even the left fielder for a LH pull hitter, could stand roughly where an L screen is placed during batting practice. What would your thoughts be on that as a fan?

 

I guess my take is that other sports have positioning rules (football has illegal formations, hockey has offsides and restrictions on where the goalie can skate before a whistle is blown), so I don't see any particularly compelling reason not to implement some sort of positioning restrictions on the baseball diamond. Leave plenty of flexibility to take advantage of hitters' tendencies, sure, but aren't some of the alignments we actually see defenses take bordering on the absurd? Just a thought..

I'm of the opinion baseball is just about perfectly designed at it's core...90 ft from home to first was perfect 100 years ago, it's still perfect now.  I'd rather not mess with that too much.  And as noted in the post you quoted...baseball has positioning rules...defenders (except the C) have to be stationed in fair territory (rule 5.02) (and I forgot earlier) that the pitcher has to assume a legal pitching position.  Other than that, "Except the pitcher and the catcher, any fielder may station himself anywhere in fair territory.

"

In your hypothetical, I'd imagine hitters would soon learn to pick up the ball anyway, and the hole in the defense would ultimately prove more damaging than any possible benefit.  Baseball's defensive positioning has evolved over time, I imagine it always will, and if standing between the pitcher and the hitter proves workable, let it go, at least until it results in drastically fewer balls in play, at which time, OK, take a look at it.  If we're going to help offense, I'd rather they find a way to reduce K's and put more balls in play.  

 

And I'm also of the opinion that baseball should specifically stay away from trying to emulate other sports (at least too much), because one of the things I like about baseball is, it isn't football.  

[nicksaviking]

Why should these pro fielders get the advantage of unfettered movement when the batter doesn't? If they want to make plays, get faster, get more agile, take better routes. See, this line of reasoning can very easily be applied in both directions.

They've always had unfettered movement, it's not new. There have always been shifts even if not always so dramatic. Should the fielders be required to stay in a certain box regardless of the handedness of a batter? Do outfielders have to remain at the same depth regardless if Ben Revere or Giancarlo Stanton is at bat?

 

Besides, at this point making fixed positions is just going to make the teams that shift to stop play every at bat to put an official lineup change in. The 3B can't play behind 2B? Great, we'll get a five minute delay while Molitor tells the umpire that now Sano is at SS and Polanco is at 3B for the pull happy lefty at the plate.

[prouster]

They've always had unfettered movement, it's not new. There have always been shifts even if not always so dramatic. Should the fielders be required to stay in a certain box regardless of the handedness of a batter? Do outfielders have to remain at the same depth regardless if Ben Revere or Giancarlo Stanton is at bat?

 

Besides, at this point making fixed positions is just going to make the teams that shift to stop play every at bat to put an official lineup change in. The 3B can't play behind 2B? Great, we'll get a five minute delay while Molitor tells the umpire that now Sano is at SS and Polanco is at 3B for the pull happy lefty at the plate.

I already said I'm not discussing this anymore (at least on this thread). Maybe you or someone else should start a new thread to discuss it further.

[PseudoSABR]

If the defense can position anywhere it wants, why not allow the runners the same kind of latitude?  

[USAFChief]

If the defense can position anywhere it wants, why not allow the runners the same kind of latitude?

 

I don't understand the question.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't understand the question.

Poorly phrased.  I'm suggesting that the runners should be allowed outside the basepaths, if the defense can position itself where it wants.  Not directly analogous, but it seems hamfisted to place arbitrary limitations on runners that helps the defense, and placing no limitation on where defenders may position themselves. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Poorly phrased. I'm suggesting that the runners should be allowed outside the basepaths, if the defense can position itself where it wants. Not directly analogous, but it seems hamfisted to place arbitrary limitations on runners that helps the defense, and placing no limitation on where defenders may position themselves.

Not directly analogous is too kind. The defense positioning itself wherever is using strategy, probability, prediction etc. within the game of baseball. The runners going wherever is a game of tag.

[Mike Sixel]

TJ
10:22 Scouts don't get excited by his stuff, and wins don't matter, but isn't Zach Littell going 19-1 in the minors interesting? For a guy who has been traded twice in a year?

 

Jeff Sullivan
10:22 I'm afraid not
10:23 Stranger: Littell has started seven games in Double-A with the Yankees, and seven games in Double-A with the Twins. His K-BB% has gone from 25% to 9%
I don't know what the Twins have done to him, but it's not great

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jeff-sullivan-fangraphs-chat-9817/

[USAFChief]

Poorly phrased.  I'm suggesting that the runners should be allowed outside the basepaths, if the defense can position itself where it wants.  Not directly analogous, but it seems hamfisted to place arbitrary limitations on runners that helps the defense, and placing no limitation on where defenders may position themselves.

 

I guess I don't understand why. And there are rules prohibiting fielders from obstructing runners...that's called obstruction.

[Vanimal46]

Klaw Chat from yesterday:

Ron: Hi Keith I see E. Rosario is at 286/326/490 with an 816 OPS. The biggest thing is his OBP which is higher than his career of 304. Is this a SSS or has he done a better job of not swinging at everything? Has some pop and seems like he slowly has improved since April.

 

 

Keith Law: He’s gone from “degenerate hacker” to “uncomfortably aggressive.” But he’s always been a bat-speed/high-contact sort of guy so I think it can work for him. He’ll never be a star, IMO, but could hang in as a regular for a while.

 

Marshall MN: Keith, the Twins have had a nice bounceback after the trade deadline but the last WC spot is still tight. Are you surprised that they haven’t called up Stephen Gonsalves to give him a run as starter?

 

Keith Law: I’m not surprised, especially if they feel like he was wearing down at the end of his season (last 3 starts included a 3-homer outing and one where he couldn’t get out of the first).

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't know what the Twins have done to him, but it's not great

Ugh, that seems like an unreasonable conclusion to draw from seven starts. The guy switched teams and leagues and is just 21 years old.

 

Gonna need a lot more data before I conclude the Twins somehow broke him.

[Thrylos]

 

Ugh, that seems like an unreasonable conclusion to draw from seven starts. The guy switched teams and leagues and is just 21 years old.

Gonna need a lot more data before I conclude the Twins somehow broke him.

 

He has not have his facts full regarding that K-BB, and it is lazy work:

 

2017 Yankees A+:  K% 20.2 %, BB% 5.3 %, K-BB% 14.9 % (71-1/3 IP)

2017 Yankees: AA: K% 29.7 %, BB% 4.6 %, K-BB% 25.1 %  (44 IP)

2017 Twins AA: K% 19.0 %, BB% 10.3 %, K-BB% 8.6 %  (42-2/3 IP)

 

From here what he did with the Twins in Chattanooga is similar to what he with the Yankees in Tampa, other than the doubled BB%. 

 

Here are the number of walks per month (and league)

 

April 5 A+
May 6 A+
June 5 AA + 4 A+ Total = 9
July 3 AA
August 18 AA

 

So that 3 at the Eastern league was pretty much an outlier compared to his previous numbers.   And prospects get tired.  Those 18 walks in August, which is the only difference between his high A K-BB% with the Yankees and his AA K-BB% with the Twins, could be the sign of fatigue and not something that the Twins did to him.  He is 21.

Lazy answer

 

[Mike Sixel]

Sigh. It was an off hand remark in a chat, not "work" or "analysis".

 

Sigh.

 

Also, I'm confused, as Thrylos literally posted numbers that backed up what he said as factual.

[Mike Sixel]

Notes on Littell:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/sunday-notes-zack-littell-knows-a-20-1-record-is-relative/

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Sigh. It was an off hand remark in a chat, not "work" or "analysis".

 

Sigh.

 

Also, I'm confused, as Thrylos literally posted numbers that backed up what he said as factual.

You give those chat guys way too much slack, Mike. Sure, it was an off-hand comment but he basically accused the Twins of somehow breaking the guy when I haven't seen evidence they've actually changed anything about him at all.

 

It's sloppy work to suggest a team did something wrong without presenting at least a sentence or two as justification. A truly neutral party would say "dunno, his peripherals have collapsed but don't know why it's happening... yet".

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with not having a perfect answer to every question and just leaving it at that.

[yarnivek1972]

As far as I know there are no rules about where any defender has to be except that the pitcher has to start on the mound, the catcher behind the plate and everyone else has to start in fair territory. Every now and then you see a 5 infielder alignment. That individual doesn't need to report a position change and is free to go back after the play or more likely the next inning if there is one.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You give those chat guys way too much slack, Mike. Sure, it was an off-hand comment but he basically accused the Twins of somehow breaking the guy when I haven't seen evidence they've actually changed anything about him at all.

 

It's sloppy work to suggest a team did something wrong without presenting at least a sentence or two as justification. A truly neutral party would say "dunno, his peripherals have collapsed but don't know why it's happening... yet".

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with not having a perfect answer to every question and just leaving it at that.

If you add the words "moving to" before "the Twins" in that response, there is no accusation of anything. How much wording precision do you expect out of these quick chat comments? The context of the question was, is Littell's record interesting (i.e. meaningful)? And the answer is not really, and his post-trade performance took some of the potential wind out of those figurative sails.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You give those chat guys way too much slack, Mike. Sure, it was an off-hand comment but he basically accused the Twins of somehow breaking the guy when I haven't seen evidence they've actually changed anything about him at all.

 

It's sloppy work to suggest a team did something wrong without presenting at least a sentence or two as justification. A truly neutral party would say "dunno, his peripherals have collapsed but don't know why it's happening... yet".

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with not having a perfect answer to every question and just leaving it at that.

 

meh, he didn't accuse them of anything, he made a snarky observation, imo.

[drivlikejehu]

I don't think in those sorts of chats it's really tenable to polish every phrase and make sure everything is 100% clear. That's just not how the medium works. And if someone doesn't want to sound like a robot, he will at times be facetious or ironic or what have you. 

 

The context here is that no one thinks Littell is a top prospect or that his W/L record is meaningful - Littell himself doesn't think that it is. Other than being involved in a trade and the record thing, basically no one would know who Littell was (not that too many do now). 

[prouster]

 

meh, he didn't accuse them of anything, he made a snarky observation, imo.

 

In general, I really like the work that the people at Fangraphs do. Sometimes, though, I think their snark is less snark than it is condescension or a lazy reliance on stereotypes (the Twins haven't historically developed good pitchers, therefore they ruined this one with their Twinsiness).

[Vanimal46]

Trevor May did a Q&A session at MLBTradeRumors.com a few days ago. He answered questions such as what it's like to be traded, organizations babying pitchers, dealing with TJS, etc. 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/09/mlbtr-mailbag-with-guest-host-trevor-may.html